Gujarat High Court
Dilipbhai Bhurabhai Barad vs State Of Gujarat on 10 July, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) NO. 13244
of 2025
In F/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 24049 of 2025
==========================================================
DILIPBHAI BHURABHAI BARAD
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PRATIK B BAROT(3711) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. PRANAV DHAGAT, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE S.V. PINTO
Date : 10/07/2025
ORAL ORDER
1. The present application is filed by the applicant - original complainant seeking leave to appeal against the order dated 29.03.2025 passed by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand (hereinafter referred to as the learned trial Court) acquitting the respondent - No. 2 in Criminal Case No. 1408 of 2019 filed by the applicant for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act).
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot for the applicant and learned Additional Public Prosecutor Mr. Pranav Dhagat for the respondent - State. Perused the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court as well as the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:38:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined
3. Learned advocate Mr. Pratik Barot appearing for the applicant submits that the applicant and the respondent No. 2 were known to each other as the applicant is a practising advocate and the respondent No. 2 is dealing in land and their offices are situated near to each other. The applicant had agricultural land in joint ownership with his father and grand father in Mod Village, Taluka: Sanand, and 90% of the land was acquired for which compensation was received by the applicant. The respondent No. 2 was in need of finance and the applicant had advanced an amount of Rs.1,50,00,000/- to the respondent No. 2 and when the amount was demanded , the respondent No. 2 gave a cheque No. "000233" dated 28.08.2019 for Rs.1,25,58,000/- from his account with Kotak Mahindra Bank, Sanand Branch. The said cheque was deposited by the applicant in his account with Bank of Baroda, Sanand Branch, but the cheque returned unpaid with the endorsement "Funds Insufficient". The demand statutory notice was given, which was duly served to the respondent No. 2 but the respondent No. 2 did not send any reply to the notice and did not make any payment within the stipulated period and hence, the applicant filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sanand, which came to be registered as Criminal Case No. 1408 of 2019. After the summons were duly served, the respondent No. 2 appeared and his plea was recorded at Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:38:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined Exh. 21 and the applicant produced oral and documentary evidence in support of his case. The applicant step into the witness box and examined two more witnesses to prove his case and produced ten documentary evidence in support of his case. The applicant has also produced the copy of his passbook from his account with Dena Bank and the Income Tax Returns at Exhs. 40 to 44. After the evidence of the applicant was recorded and the closing pursis was filed, the further statement of the respondent No.2 under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein, the main defense taken by the respondent No. 2 that the cheque did not bear his signature and the cheque was given as a security to theapplicant. After the arguments of the learned advocates for the respective parties were heard, the learned trial Court was pleased to acquit the respondent No. 2 from the offence under Section 138 of the NI.Act only on the ground that the applicant had not proved his financial capactity and the applicant has improved his version in the evidecne. Learned advocate for the applicant submits that a copy of the passbook of the applicant with Dena Bank was on record, wherein, the financial capacity of the applicant has been proved and the respondent No. 2 did not reply to the notice and did not raise any plausible defense. Learned advocate for the applicant further submits that learned trial Court has not appreicated the documentary evidence in proper persepctive and the application seeking Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:38:23 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION R/CR.MA/13244/2025 ORDER DATED: 10/07/2025 undefined leave to appeal must be granted.
4. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor, Mr. Pranav Dhagat appearing for the respondent No. 1 - State has submitted that learned trial Court has considered all the oral and documentary evidence in proper perspective and no interference is required in the impugned order and hence the application seeking leave to appeal must be rejected.
5. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the applicant as also on perusal of the impugned order and the paper book submitted by the learned advocate for the applicant, prima-facie, it appears that the learned trial Court has not appreciated the documents in proper perspective and hence, the application seeking leave to appeal deserves consideration and the same is granted.
(S. V. PINTO,J) VVM Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by VISHAL MISHRA(HC01088) on Thu Jul 10 2025 Downloaded on : Thu Jul 10 22:38:23 IST 2025